process_sales_invoice

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states the tool creates and books (a mutation), optionally emails the customer, and returns the Yuki response with a document ID. However, it does not clarify that 'booking' is typically irreversible or that specific permissions may be required, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the key behavioral aspects: creation, booking, optional email, and return value with document ID. The detailed schema fills in the rest. It lacks explicit guidance on failure scenarios or prerequisites, but is otherwise complete for a create operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers 92% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by grouping parameters into 'invoice header, contact, and line items' and mentioning the email option, but it does not substantially enhance the schema's parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates and books a sales invoice in Yuki, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It also lists the accepted components (header, contact, line items) and the optional email side-effect, making its purpose unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like process_purchase_invoice and process_journal.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies the tool is for sales invoices, and the verb 'create and book' gives a direct usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like process_purchase_invoice or state when not to use it, so it provides clear context but no exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.